prisons

Perhaps the second time is the charm. In 2004, he ignored the proposals from an independent commission on overhauling California's criminal justice system. The leading experts in the field prepared reports and recommendations which Arnold let languish in a drawer. They warned Arnold that unless he started doing something right away the pressing problem would evolve into a full scale disaster, risking a court takeover.

Everything they warned would happen has occurred, but now Arnold has a second chance in the form of the recommendations from another expert panel. They came back with most of the same ideas as the first commission. The situation could not be more critical, with the state about to expand prison capacity and the courts threatening to release prisoners early due to human rights violations. Weintraub:

Like the Deukmejian commission, this panel, which included academics, consultants and prison officials from other states, recommended new, positive incentives to encourage inmates to enroll in and complete education, job training and drug addiction programs. It suggested the adoption of a new "risk assessment" tool designed to determine which inmates are most likely to commit new crimes after they are released, and to give prison managers options to reduce that likelihood. Every inmate would have a behavior management plan and would be rewarded if he met its objectives. And the churn that now sends criminals into and out of prison for short terms would be dramatically reduced.

My cousin, Jonathan Turley, was one of those academics who proposed the state start an early parole program for elderly prisoners who are of little risk to the state. Age is one of many risk factors that can be included in any risk assessment tool. Of course, his recommendation was just one of many that Arnold ignored.

Here is what the panel recommended:

• Replacing current work-incentive programs, which reduce inmate sentences by a day for each day worked or attending school, with a program that grants those sentence credits to inmates who demonstrate good behavior.
• Awarding additional good-time credits to offenders who complete any rehabilitation program in prison and while on parole.
• Stopping the return of parolees to prison for violations of parole rules short of committing a new crime.
• Releasing low-risk, nonviolent offenders without parole after the end of their terms.
• Ending parole supervision early for offenders who complete rehabilitation programs and follow all the rules set for them after their release.

These policies could reduce the prison population by upwards of 43,000, saving the state about $600 million a year. That is even after the increased costs for work-training, education and drug addition programs for prisoners and parolees. It is an all around win-win situation and one that should have started years ago.

The governor has said repeatedly that he won't release prison inmates early to reduce overcrowding. But this panel is saying that releasing inmates early might actually make the public safer, if those releases are tied to behaviors that could reduce the chance that an inmate will commit a new crime.

The prison managers are starting to work towards creating individual assessment programs and a comprehensive re-evaluation of rehabilitation programs, but that is not where the big reductions will come from. Sentencing laws and parole policies are the cause of many of the problems. As Weintraub says: "On those issues, Schwarzenegger must lead the way." The legislature has failed to act on its own, seemingly out of fear of the political repercussions of being called "weak on crime". It is time to get past that destructive loop and talk rationally about our failed system.

We have the highest recidivism rate in the country. About 70% of inmates land back in jail within three years of their release. The courts are about to release prisoners whether we like it or not. Prisons are struggling to hire new staff, given the poor working conditions. We are spending inefficiently, draining our resources at a time when we can ill-afford the expense.

Inaction is the problem. It is time to finally listen to the experts and tackle a problem we have at best ignored and at worst exacerbated. Arnold can lead, but only if he stops studying the problem and starts acting. We need to fix this problem, so we can go on to tackling others. The voters need less posturing and more solutions. They want their legislature spending their time improving our education system, not trying to avoid a court take-over of the prison system.

I can't believe have to write such an obvious statement. This is why:

The post-partisan governor then proceeded to reject two health-care ideas floating around the Capitol: "Some say it should be market-driven. Others say that government should run the system. The system we have now is market-driven, but it does not work. We have also seen state-run health care in the prisons, and that hasn't worked."

I guess that's why Arnold vetoed SB 840 last year.

The prison system is a complete disaster. Politicians for years have ignored all of the warning signs and pushed off dealing with the problem to another day. Why? Well, frankly there is little incentive for them to address the crumbling system. They are not going to earn more votes by advocating that more money and resources be spent on prisoners. So they didn't and it fell into further and further disrepair. It took the federal court stepping in for some semblance of momentum towards reform to appear. Even still, Arnold is not addressing it in a comprehensive manner, focusing too much on bricks and mortar and not enough on recidivism rates.

The same cannot be said for a health care system that would cover all Californians. The government would have a vested interest in ensuring that it would work. And every voter would have a stake in the program. Apples to oranges.

Salladay continues:

Finally, the governor concludes in prepared remarks: "But if you take our proposal as a whole, I think you will agree it is the best reform plan anyone has come up with." [Emphasis added.]

Schwarzenegger is doing what he's supposed to do - sell his own legislative plan to the public. At the same time, he's telling the ideological "extremes" on both ends that their ideas are meaningless and they better "jump on board the progress train." Sounds like ordinary politics.

Post-partisanship is a farce.

Back to the prisons...

It turns out that Arnold has drastically reduced the number of prisoners he is willing to parole who were sentenced to life. Crime victim groups are pleased, but I want to focus on one person in particular he has rejected.

I am borrowing this title from Sasha at Left in SF, who brings up an excellent point that I would like to take a step further. The governor's major proposals, in his State of the State speech, to solve our most vexing problems from health care, to water storage, to prisons is to treat the symptoms of the problems not the root causes.

His health care proposal does little to ensure an efficient provider system. The failure to do more to reign in insurance costs will mean that we continue to overpay for sub-par health care. The big winners are Arnold's big backers in the insurance industry and the rest of us from business owners to employees to the government itself lose out.

What were Arnold's solutions to water demand and prison overcrowding? Maxing out the state credit card. He wants another round of bond borrowing totaling $29.4 billion that would literally put the state at it's debt limit for the next decade. All of this from a man, who promised to cut up the state's credit card. Anyone remember this picture?

That is Arnold in 2003, cutting up the state's credit card.